Matthew Yglesias (May 09, 2008) - Against Unity (Politics)

Wes Clark is a the best option for Obama. He appeals to Clinton voters, he has an incredibly strong foreign policy record, those 4 stars look pretty good against some upstart gov from minnesota. additionally, he isnt a great campaigner but he's solid and stays on message, something my man jimm webb would find difficult. I also think Webb would be hurt among hillary voters because of the sexist novels and articles he wrote. Also, Clark is fresh, new, an outsider, and was against the war from the beginning.

Posted by mejhova | May 9, 2008 9:37 AM

I have been a Kathleen Sebelius supporter for many months.

Regardless, I think this post is pretty much right on. Having supported the war should be a deal-breaker for this job because it undermines one of the most important arguments we need to take to McCain.

Posted by Curtis | May 9, 2008 9:42 AM

Of course you're right, Matt, which is why I'm looking forward to the next couple of months of intra-Democratic politics. I hope I won't be disappointed, since contrary to conventional wisdom the best time for a purge is before the election, not after.

Posted by Marshall | May 9, 2008 9:44 AM

Well, as everyone here knows, I'm no great fan of Obama, but I agree that adding Hillary to the bottom of the ticket would be *extremely* stupid.

Basically, I'd argue that the main reason Clinton has been doing as well as she has in the primaries is because she's Not-Obama. For example, I can't imagine all those rural NRA Democrats in PA and industrial workers in OH suddenly discovering a gigantic love for the gun-grabbing, NAFTA-backing Clintons.

That's a huge problem for Obama, but one he won't solve by pretending that "beloved Hillary" is the necessary ingredient to his ticket.

Posted by RKU | May 9, 2008 9:46 AM

I agree with everything Matt says in this post, except he has left out the strongest reason for choosing Hillary: the fact that she narrowly lost the nomination, and has lots of supporters who may stay home or defect to McCain. I don't know how serious this danger is, given that the general is so far away, but this is really the only reason I can see for choosing her.

Posted by Jim W | May 9, 2008 9:47 AM

I agree with Matt. Obama's main argument for his candidacy is that judgment trumps experience. If he then turn around and picks a veep based on experience, it undermines his entire campaign. He should show confidence in his judgment and not pick some graybeard who supported the war in Iraq. There are other reasons to consider picking Hillary but this isn't one of them.

Posted by Ron | May 9, 2008 9:48 AM

Fine post up to the last bonkers paragraph.

Matt evidently would rather the Dems lose than he risk alienating the Feministe crowd.

Obama's VP choice should, of course, be a white Christian male. Foreign policy experience a plus. Preferably Protestant.

Talk about a total fucking no brainer. This is about as close to one (assuming, yes, you actually want to
Obama to win) as you can get. My Lord.

Napolitano is a NY-born gov who's. only held that office since 2002. And, yes, last time I checked she wasn't a White Christian Male!

Dumb, dumb, dumb!

Posted by Not a White Christian Male | May 9, 2008 9:52 AM

Well said, Matt.

Can I just add that even worse ideas are being touted by Democratic officials -- particularly the idea that Obama should choose Sam freakin' Nunn?

Nunn is 70 years old and noteworthy for being roughly as far to the Right as Zell Miller. He was one of the chief rabble-rousers against gays in the military during Clinton's first term. He exemplifies nearly everything that's wrong with the conventional wisdom about what constitutes being "serious" about national defense.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 9, 2008 9:53 AM

I second the Wesley Clark nod. That will surely clear up any national security doubts. 4 stars in yo face. Also, he is a Rhodes scholar. Remember the last Rhodes scholar in the oval office? The name was Clinton, but it wasn't Hillary brining in cookies and milk.

Posted by freddiemac | May 9, 2008 9:54 AM

The Clinton "War Record" is far worse than just Iraq. It, and for that matter Kilgore's, is the whole program of the DLC, the AFL-CIA, and the Trotskyites.

They were and still are Vichy Democrats: Still trying to moderate or conceal the reactionary and repressive aims of the GOP that Thatcherites and Darbyites are more explicit about.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | May 9, 2008 9:54 AM

I just can't see Janet Napolitano being a strong VP choice. She doesn't exactly have the same base of support as HRC.

mejhova is correct: Clark, Webb, someone like that.

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | May 9, 2008 9:56 AM

matt, why were you for the war? seriously

Posted by Syd B | May 9, 2008 9:57 AM

In my opinion, Obama should not choose Clinton for his running mate because she would almost certainly try to undermine his campaign to give herself another chance in 2012. Moreover, if the VP is more acceptable to the Neocons than Obama, he is more likely to be assassinated.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 9, 2008 9:58 AM

Well said Matt. Going into this election season, the Clintons and their machine were the Democratic Party, and Obama's defeat of that Clinton machine is historic and amazing. A large part of the reason why he has been able to defeat them is that he won the national security debate.

Obama is looking forward to a real national security debate with McCain in the general election, and has already staked out clear, contrasting foreign policy positions which the country is ready to get behind. I suspect Obama will be even stronger in this area in the general election campaign than he was against Clinton. Clinton tried - somewhat unconvincingly - to move to the left during the campaign, which made it more difficult for Obama to pose sharp contrasts. McCain is going to run on a fanatical extension of the Bush agenda, and Obama is going to get right in his kitchen on this issue and pound away.

I hate all this talk about the need to choose Jim Webb, Wes Clark or Hillary Clinton of all people to give Obama credibility on national security. This kind of talk sends precisely the wrong messsage to the electorate. Obama already has more than enough credibility in this department, and Democrats need to embrace what is distinctive in his message and get behind it, instead of undermining that message by suggesting it, or he, lacks credibility.

Obama is a worldly and well-informed man who knows what he is talking about when he discusses global affairs and the US global position. He is not some boob like George Bush, who need to tab a national security "grownup" like Dick Cheney to help him handle national security issues in his campaign.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 9, 2008 9:58 AM

I am not the first to point this out, but the general strategy of "ticket balancing" has a big possibility of reinforcing press-driven narratives about a candidate's weakness. For example Wes Clark for VP could create a narrative that Obama feels weak or uncomfortable on national security. Likewise Sebelius or Napolitano reinforce the view that Obama has a hard time appealing to white women.

In contrast look at BClinton's pick of Gore in 92. Two moderate white southerners. This sent a signal that Clinton was not concerned with shoring up weaknesses or appealing to "pressure groups".

The attraction of a unity ticket with Hillary is not that it balances ideology or demographics, but that the dominant narrative will be that she earned the number 2 spot by a strong second place showing in the primary.

Posted by Dan F. | May 9, 2008 9:59 AM

Clinton's "street cred" on national security consists, of course, of being massively wrong on the most important national security issue of her career. Paradoxically, a lot of folks find her massive wrongness on this hugely important issue reassuring because they and their friends were also wrong and they view having made the right call to be a suspicious quality.

I don't know Matt, I think it has as much to do with the fact that for whatever reason, even some Democrats favor unthinking, knee-jerk belligerence.

It's "tough," and I always thought the most important thing the Democrats could do (and Obama SHOULD) do is draw the distiinction for the voters: We have been "strong," but we have not been smart. We have to be both.

But particularly after 9/11, it was like the captain of the football team getting smacked in the mouth by some scrawny schoolyard kid. Doesn't the capitain of the football team have to respond to that? I think that was the thinking.

Posted by Gil Smart | May 9, 2008 9:59 AM

What Obama needs most in a VP is someone who's actually run something. He and McCain both lack executive experience, as does HRC.

Gov. Napolitano is an interesting choice, as she's run both a US Attorney's office and Arizona, and knows border issues. Jim Webb ran the Navy, and might go a long way to countering McCain's personal story. Gov. Richardson ran federal cabinet agencies and New Mexico.

Posted by veblen | May 9, 2008 10:02 AM

matt, why were you for the war? seriously

Because he was about 21 years old, and had a lot to learn. To his credit, he learned very, very quickly.

Posted by rea | May 9, 2008 10:07 AM

If it HAS to be a woman then it should be Hillary. No other woman that I see will complement Obama's weaknesses.

But my preference would be Wes Clark. I've seen his name mentioned lately. He would appeal to Clinton supporters and shore up Obama's national security creds.

Clinton was not *massively* wrong on Iraq. There were a lot of ways it might not have gone fubar. And being a peacenik hippie doesn't make someone a good veep choice.

Posted by Decided | May 9, 2008 10:08 AM

I have a completely, 100 percent cynical reason for wanting an Obama/Clinton ticket: it's assassination-proof. Anyone who hates the thought of having a black president enough that they're willing to kill him will pause at the thought of making "Shrillery" president by doing so. Ditto if Clinton is at the top of the ticket and Obama is VP.

And they're doubly assassination-proof since if someone decides to take them both out, we then have President Pelosi, that latte-sipping San Francisco liberal.

From a completely cynical and apocalyptic standpoint, it's a win-win.

Posted by Mnemosyne | May 9, 2008 10:08 AM

Lacks executive experience? Last time I looked, he was running a couple of hundred million dollar political campaign, against the establishment favorite who had massive resources. You can talk about HRC's faults all you want to, but Obama has run an extraordinarily good, complex, large campaign.

And he ran community organizing campaigns in Chicago, too--roughly equivalent to being mayor of a small town.

Posted by vorkosigan1 | May 9, 2008 10:10 AM

I keep harping on this, but we really have to stop looking at the VP slot as an ideological or geographical balance. The last 16 years have disproven that; instead, the VP has become a *complement*.

Where this man love for Wes Clark comes from, I really have no idea. Don't people remember his 2004 campaign? He is not a very good politician.

If you are a progressive Dem, the question you should be asking is: who is the very next best person after Obama who should be President? I have a hard time reconciling Wes Clark (or Jim Webb, for that matter) as the answer to that question.

Posted by McKingford | May 9, 2008 10:11 AM

Great points. This is why I read Matt's stuff.

Posted by Neil | May 9, 2008 10:11 AM

"Decided," referring to someone who was right about the iraq war as a "peacenik hippie" is precisely the sort of bad elements of our political culture we're trying to purge, not reinforce.

Posted by Tyro | May 9, 2008 10:12 AM

Sorry, but it's gotta be Hillary, for reasons that have been well stated above.

And I say that even though there are LOTS of good reasons not to choose her: I'm still pissed off with her about the war and several other issues. And oh, yes, there's the well-known Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. And as a big Molly Ivins fan, I well remember her deathbed warnings against Hillary.

But Hillary has managed to stay in the race to the end, and so you can't just casually throw her overboard at this point, alas.

Posted by Worst. President. Ever. | May 9, 2008 10:12 AM

It's not the Veep's job to run anything. The Veep's job is to go to funerals and ask about the Prez's health every now and then. There is no 4th Branch.

And Obama has already said it's not going to be a military or foreign policy Very Serious Person. It'll be an Amplify The Message choice.

(And please people, stop floating GOP names for Defense or State, for dog's sake. Think of the message "us widdle demmies can't handle the big guns, let's ask a big daddy republican to do it for us".)

Posted by kvenlander | May 9, 2008 10:14 AM

"The attraction of a unity ticket with Hillary is not that it balances ideology or demographics, but that the dominant narrative will be that she earned the number 2 spot by a strong second place showing in the primary."

This is correct, but I think this impulse would be better served by selecting a Clinton loyalist who is not actually a Clinton. Ed Rendell would be a good example.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 9, 2008 10:15 AM

49% of the country hates HRC. Why would Obama want to saddle himself with her negatives?

Posted by asjkl | May 9, 2008 10:16 AM

Whether Obama needs to consider choosing Clinton for the sake of party unity, and to satisfy her supporters, depends a great deal on the position Clinton herself takes over the next few months. If she lets it be known that she wants the VP position, and is then rejected, her supporters will be seriously PO'd. If, however, she makes it quite clear that she has no interest in being Vice President, then Obama is off the hook.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 9, 2008 10:17 AM

Matt does not understand the circle of life.

Street cred on security matters means the ability to sweat in fear over Republican ads hammering you for the lack of cred in security matters and as a consequence to cow down to any and all hairbrained Republican ideas to wage senseless wars in lands we know nothing about and in doing so lose all street cred on security for following the Republican line blindly.

Posted by gregor | May 9, 2008 10:17 AM

The other thing about Hillary as VP is how loyal can she be expected to be? I have visions of her (and Bill) undermining Obama - either deliberately or subconsciously.

Indeed, if you think Cheney was a Veep run amok, I look at him as a kid with training wheels compared to what Hillary might do - especially with Cheney having now blazed this trail.

Posted by McKingford | May 9, 2008 10:19 AM

Matt's post is ok as far as it goes, but it still perpetuates the myth of judgment vs experience. If having supported Bush's war is experience, 75% of Americans would be qualified to be president. Clinton remains a junior senator with little even there, in legislation, to claim as her own. That's why she's had to make up stories about Bosnia and Belfast.

After all the righteous and justified anger at the media for putting issues last, can't someone keep insisting that along the way they skewed both their presentation of the issues and the character and experience issues they put first?

McCain has a real foreign-policy record we could criticize, as a war monger. Instead, he's just a leader because, well, he suffered horribly as a young man in Vietnam. Oh, and a straight shooter who lies and a reformer who lets lobbyists run the show. His POW record is commendable, even heroic. His lies since are abominable. But they are not what they are said to be, and neither is Clinton.

Posted by John Haber | May 9, 2008 10:25 AM

Count me among the pro-Clark crowd. I'm not sure I buy that a sort of meta-narrative about it making Obama seem insecure would really matter to anyone outside of the political junkie circuit--and it would probably only matter there for the first couple news cycles after the announcement.

And let's be real here--running mates really don't help anyone get elected. People get excited about it because the selection of a running mate is a mysterious process that allows political junkies to have all sorts of fun arguments like this one. But I don't think it matters to the race, which is why I have no compunctions about keeping my fingers crossed for Clark--who may not be big on charisma but has an outstanding resume and happens to be really, really smart. I like him becuase I think he'd be a good VICE PRESIDENT rather than a campaign sidekick.

Posted by Jake H. | May 9, 2008 10:25 AM

I'm referring to the anti-any-war crowd as peacenik hippies. They opposed Iraq because they oppose any war. Obama isn't part of this group. There is no mainstream support for a pacifist in the White House. Dirty effing hippie is just as dishonest rhetoric when played by the left as the right. That's not the real discussion.

And Janet Napolitano would be a gawd awful choice for Veep. Obama is enough of an unknown to many people. Makes no sense to tie him down with a bigger unknown.

Clark would be great. Political skills don't matter much for a veep. And he's got all the rest of the package.

Posted by Decided | May 9, 2008 10:27 AM

I agree Obama should, and likely will, make his choice based on who would best emphasize his new brand for the Democratic Party, both as a matter of substance and as a matter of political style. And if that person lacks something on a longer possible wish list, so be it.

That said, with respect to that longer wish list of secondary items, I would have no problem with Obama favoring a person with military and/or foreign policy expertise, provided that person opposed the war. The reason is that such a person would help underscore the fact that military and foreign policy experts who actually knew something about the various relevant matters (and who weren't partisan hacks or neocon mystics) tended to oppose the war. And underscoring that fact will help underscore the related fact that while McCain presents himself as a military and foreign policy expert, he actually appears to have little real understanding of the relevant issues.

Posted by DTM | May 9, 2008 10:29 AM

But Hillary has managed to stay in the race to the end...

by this reasoning Gravel would be an equally good consideration. As would Ron Paul for McCain.

Personally, I think Obama's VP choice has to be a bulldog. Clearly Obama has not, will not, cannot come across as the angry candidate. His partner needs to be the one that does that for him. That's the reason Webb looks good to me. And although I don't want Hillary in there for a myriad of reasons, I think she would be good at it in this respect at least.

Posted by Strega Nona | May 9, 2008 10:32 AM

Decided, you're raising a straw man, here. It is pretty much well known that many war supporters supported the war because they simply didn't want to be tarred as a "peacenik" and that supporting the Iraq war makes you "tough on national security." Honestly, we need to purge that mindset from our political culture.

Next, there's no actual mainstream politician in the US who's a pacifist who might be anywhere on the radar as Obama's VP. Maybe Kucinich. But I have a feeling that he probably would have supported the bombing of Serbia as a sop to his Croatian constituents in Cleveland.

Posted by Tyro | May 9, 2008 10:38 AM

Political skills don't matter much for a veep.

Unless the unthinkable happens, and they actually have to step up and be president - that is the most important job the veep has, you know. The last thing you want is someone moving into the White House - especially after a national tragedy/crisis - with little actual political ability.

I still don't get it about Clark, though. 5 years ago, nobody even knew he was a Dem. I'd like someone with a little more proven track record as a progressive.

And while I generally agree that the running-mate doesn't usually get anyone elected, if Gore had had someone with just the slightest bit of fight in him as his VP, instead of that feckless wimp Lieberman, he would have won enough votes to keep the Supreme Court out of it...

Posted by McKingford | May 9, 2008 10:39 AM

By the way, as usual RKU's "analysis" flies in the face of the fact that in many regions of the country, rural gun-owners and industrial workers have had no problem supporting Obama over Hillary. But conversely, I agree it is likely not Hillary herself who has appealed to those people in certain limited regions, but rather Bill Clinton, with Hillary serving as Bill's proxy.

Therefore, I agree with RKU to the limited extent that if Obama wanted to pick a VP who would most appeal to those people, he should not pick someone like Hillary. Rather, he should pick someone like Bill. But that said, as many have pointed out the VP pick rarely works to the presidential candidate's advantage in that way. Rather, for that purpose what Obama would benefit from the most is Bill himself, meaning Bill out campaigning for Obama.

Posted by DTM | May 9, 2008 10:39 AM

How about John Edwards? I saw him on "Morning Joe" and he came across great. He and his wife are widely liked and respected; he exited honorably and stayed neutral in the campaign; he has political experience from running as VP and hopefully has learned from his mistakes; he's acknowledged his vote for the war was a mistake; he pulls in some of the HRC "extended Appalachia" demographic (probably better than her); he's well-known without overshadowing Barack; he's a lawyer that knows how to represent clients; and he's fully vetted. He can use the visibility of the VP slot to push his anti-poverty agenda without making it too much the center of the administration.

VP picks probably don't matter that much, i.e., a bad pick is not necessarily disasterous (witness Dan Quayle). A good VP pick is the ultimate buddy flick. One reason for the success of Clinton/Gore is that they came across as a team. Even Bush and Cheney had that going for them. A solid VP comes across as a right hand man, XO or seargeant major.

Clark is a great guy, but not politically gifted enough -- better choice for SecDef. Richardson is a great one on one guy and might help out West, but is a lousy campaigner. Sibelius and Napolitano are fine politicians, but nobody knows them. Clinton is too strong and would be fool to do it, she has more potential in the Senate. I'd say Edwards, possible second choice Richardson.

Posted by Georgia Pig | May 9, 2008 10:48 AM

If Clinton is the VP candidate, two things will happen:

1) Clinton-related dramas will continue to dominate the headlines, and;

2) At some point, someone in the press will ask whether Clinton's continued dominance of the headlines means Obama is incapable of commanding his own ticket, let alone the country.

Posted by Ryan | May 9, 2008 10:48 AM

How about John Edwards? I saw him on "Morning Joe" and he came across great. He and his wife are widely liked and respected; he exited honorably and stayed neutral in the campaign; he has political experience from running as VP and hopefully has learned from his mistakes; he's acknowledged his vote for the war was a mistake; he pulls in some of the HRC "extended Appalachia" demographic (probably better than her); he's well-known without overshadowing Barack; he's a lawyer that knows how to represent clients; and he's fully vetted. He can use the visibility of the VP slot to push his anti-poverty agenda without making it too much the center of the administration.

VP picks probably don't matter that much, i.e., a bad pick is not necessarily disasterous (witness Dan Quayle). A good VP pick is the ultimate buddy flick. One reason for the success of Clinton/Gore is that they came across as a team. Even Bush and Cheney had that going for them. A solid VP comes across as a right hand man, XO or seargeant major.

Clark is a great guy, but not politically gifted enough -- better choice for SecDef. Richardson is a great one on one guy and might help out West, but is a lousy campaigner. Sibelius and Napolitano are fine politicians, but nobody knows them. Clinton is too strong and would be fool to do it, she has more potential in the Senate. I'd say Edwards, possible second choice Richardson.

Posted by Georgia Pig | May 9, 2008 10:50 AM

1. Why would Senator Clinton even consider an offer of the vice presidential slot? What's in it for her? In the unlikely event that Senator Obama won the election and served two terms, she would be 69 years old in 2016, too old to run for president at that time. For her, it's now or never.

2. General Wesley Clark would certainly appeal to the Israel bashers on this blog (except for Mr. Don Williams, apparently because Clark doesn't bash Israel hard enough).

Posted by SLC | May 9, 2008 10:53 AM

Why would Obama want to saddle himself with her negatives?

Agreed. Vice presidential choices rarely help a candidate win the election. But they can help lose it.

Choosing Clinton would include taking on all the baggage of the 1990's. Republicans could still run their "I hate Hillary" campaign (doubtless with the suggestion that she'd have Obama assassinated the day he took office), she'd spend the rest of the election rebutting her own attacks on Obama, and she'd undermine his foreign policy focus.

Republicans ran against Hillary when Bill was in office - and she wasn't a heartbeat away from the presidency at the time.

Posted by Jinchi | May 9, 2008 10:55 AM

white guy...older...ceo'ish....silver hair...fit...wise

Posted by judson | May 9, 2008 11:00 AM

Right now the Democratic Party is deeply divided, as evidenced by the steadily rising number of Democratic primary voters threatening to take a dive in November. Those divisions are, in fact, John McCain's most important political asset. - Kilgore

I can't be the only one who remembers how hostile Republicans were to McCain's candidacy - even 2 months ago. Unlike Clinton and Obama, he rarely scored above 40% of the vote until all but the most token opposition remained.

Posted by Jinchi | May 9, 2008 11:04 AM

white guy...older...ceo'ish....silver hair...fit...wise

You want him to pick McCain for his VP?

Posted by Jinchi | May 9, 2008 11:08 AM

Two reasons not to pick Edwards:

(1) The war vote. Yes he apologized, but it would be far better to have someone who can make the affirmative case against the war without having that vote to deal with.

(2) For whatever reason, while Edwards looks like he should be an appealing candidate on paper, he seems to underperform in the real world.

Posted by DTM | May 9, 2008 11:08 AM

Hillary's campaign is based on race-baiting and fear-mongering. She worships at the altar of the politics of personal destruction. There is no way she deserves to be rewarded with the VP slot after she has run such a vile and repulsive campaign. She has shown nothing but contempt and ridicule for Obama.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, James Clyburn, Rahm Emmanuel, Barbara Boxer, Mary Landrieu, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Mario Cuomo need to hold a news conference in which they all endorse Obama.
Hillary needs to go gentle into that good night. In the words of Franz Kafka and Marvin Gaye, Hillary has got to "Give It Up"

Posted by jerry | May 9, 2008 11:09 AM

I "third" the choice of Clark. He was against the war, he's got national security cred out the whazoo, and he's got executive experience on the scale that's needed for running a huge country like the US. Obama should be there to inspire, he needs someone like Clark to execute his ideas.

Remember a President Obama is going to be faced with a federal bureaucracy riddled with idealogues whose only goal will be to sabotage him and set things up for Jeb in 2012.

Hillary is a wonk. She belongs as Senate Majority Leader. In that position, she can make sure that President Obama does the right thing with healthcare. A VP slot would be going nowhere for her, big mistake.

Sebellius stank when she gave the SOTU rebuttal. No thanks.

Posted by Taylor | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM

Kucinich

Posted by Luke | May 9, 2008 11:11 AM

Political skills don't matter much for a veep.

Of course they do-- for one thing, they let the campaign be two places at once (and having Bill effectively in the VP role is the main reason HRC has made it this far). And if you want to go to YouTube and watch some Gore videos from the '92 campaign, the value of a complementary, charismatic (!) running mate seems pretty apparent.

Last time I checked TNR out, they'd put up posts on this subject from Mark Schmitt & Mike Tomasky that were much less favorable to the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket, which relieved me greatly. I like Kilgore, but Schmitt is one of the analysts I respect most. And here's what Tomasky said that hit hardest:

And if Mr. Clinton as First Husband seemed problematic, what of him padding around the Naval Observatory? A former president married to a current president would at least mean that the two were working more or less as a team. A former president married to a current vice president who really thinks she should be president creates the potential for way too much mischief that could undermine the president.

Posted by latts | May 9, 2008 11:12 AM

Obama - Bloomberg, plain simple would be the best possible imaginable ticket.

Posted by Migleu | May 9, 2008 11:18 AM

One may see the analogy to LBJ, but he'd already been in senate leadership and proved he could deliver when he was named veep. Clinton's proved in the campaign she can push hard, and he might be very effective as the next majority leader in demanding uniformity from democrats, and her previous work across the aisle might help with the insufferable blue dogs. Still, she'd still have to do that job, not be named as if she'd done it. She's mostly voted passively, not led, in the senate.

Her other selling point, wining over blue-color white men, is mythical. She morphed suddenly last month into their candidate. How much is myth (numbers of total whites) slanted by older white women, how much is successful media spin, and how much is just white backlash at a black man she'd never help overcome as veep? I don't know, but I can't think of her image there as lasting compared to that of others. And nominating a woman to deal with male prejudice is counterintuitve. Faced with a black man and a woman, those white men might rush twice as fast to McCain.

Posted by John Haber | May 9, 2008 11:18 AM

I think Matt has a very important point about mistaking hawkishness with cred. But I also think Ed Kilgore has a point that Obama does need to fill the slot with some national security cred.

Which disqualifies Hillary Rodham Clinton. This person's career in national politics started eight years ago. By rejecting her as the nominee, the voters have rejected the notion that time spent in the first spouse's role serves as proper preparation for taking the reigns a commander-in-chief.

This is not to say that she would not be qualified to take office had she won the nomination. It is only that on the assumption that Sen. Obama is in need of nat'l security cred in the #2 (I think he does but he may find otherwise and I would defer to that political judgement), she does not have the experience to fill that bill.

We are no longer talking about appealing to a Democratic base that wants to believe in her overwhelming national security qulifications. We have to appeal to the broader electorate now, who doesn't and never has regarded Sem. Clinton as a real national security heavyweight. You had to care about the subject before 9/11 to get that nod.

Obama may very well choose her because of what she brings to the ticket and in the interest of healing wounds (though he won't if he gets strong-armed). But that will be after he makes the determination the this national security cred issue is really not a major electoral imperative.

Posted by Mike | May 9, 2008 11:20 AM

Obama has a private meeting with Hagel about national security and the meeting is leaked to the press. Hagel is speculated as a Sec. State or Def. candidate and - bang - Obama has street cred.

Posted by carsick | May 9, 2008 11:21 AM

I have no idea whether the idea is preposterous or not, but I think Warren Buffett as VP would attract the most additional votes. Of course he might not be willing, and he might not be ready for a VP debate; but his stature, popularity, and credibility on fixing the economy are unbeatable.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 9, 2008 11:21 AM

"Clinton was not *massively* wrong on Iraq."

Yes, actually, she was.

"There were a lot of ways it might not have gone fubar."

Really? With the Bush administration in charge? No, there were no real-world scenarios where it would not have gone fubar, even with a competent individual in charge, given that we didn't have the manpower to do the job right.

"And being a peacenik hippie doesn't make someone a good veep choice."

There are no "peacenik hippies" being considered for veep. The true "peacenik hippies" are few and marginalized, having no power and no voice in the Democratic Party. The term has been used as a bludgeon against people who were opposed, not to all wars, but to stupid wars.

Posted by PaulB | May 9, 2008 11:28 AM

Adding some GOP pariah doesn't add any "street cred" to Obama in terms of foreign policy. This is Obama's biggest problem, if he's the nominee. McCain will go around talking about "success" and "victory" in Iraq, and Obama will be trying to talk himself back from an anti-war position. If the election hinges on foreign policy, Obama's in bad shape.

Napolitano and Sebelius would be weak VP candidates. They're both great governors, but have no national reputation Wes Clark is a good choice, but Hillary would be better.

The Obama people need to face one fact: The rest of the country is not over-awed by the awesomeness of Obama. Maybe it's their fault, or maybe you're got stars in your eyes. In any case, half of the Democratic Party didn't want him. (In fact, just among Democrats, MORE than half didn't want him.)

Something needs to be done to bridge that gap, and calling them racists and "Archie Bunkers" is not the way to go.

Posted by John Petty | May 9, 2008 11:28 AM

"McCain will go around talking about 'success' and 'victory' in Iraq, and Obama will be trying to talk himself back from an anti-war position.

Um, why on earth would he "talk himself back" from an enormously popular position? That would be incredibly foolish. McCain, along with other Republicans, has been talking "success" and "victory" in Iraq for months, but the poll numbers haven't changed much. I see no reason for them to do so between now and November, particularly with the increase in violence and the necessity of drawing down our forces because we cannot sustain "the surge".

"If the election hinges on foreign policy, Obama's in bad shape."

Not even remotely. Running against John "100 more years in Iraq" McCain on foreign policy should be a piece of cake.

Posted by PaulB | May 9, 2008 11:34 AM

Considering that the American people are plainly sick of the endlessly unfulfilled promises of ill-defined "successes" and "victories" in Iraq, and that they proved their willingness to vote accordingly in 2006, I highly doubt Obama views himself as being in "bad shape" on foreign policy.

Posted by DTM | May 9, 2008 11:37 AM

Obama-Gore. Gore brings experience, name recognition, party unity. He is a white southerner, he knows how to campaign. In hindsight, people wish he had been elected in 2000. He has a considerably better media image than he did in 2000. He has been a champion of the most important issue of our time and a not insignificant number of Democrats were hoping he would run all along.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 9, 2008 11:43 AM

I agree with much of the thinking that has led other commenters to recommend Clark, but I think the same factors that weigh in favor of Clark weigh even more heavily in favor of Jim Webb. He has impeccable military credentials yet is anti-war. Plus, his whole Scots-Irish shit kicker persona would nicely shore up Obama's apparent vulnerability with the white working class, which, as silly as it is on some levels, is nonetheless a real issue that the Dems will have to grapple with in the general election. I also have more confidence in Webb than in Clark when it comes to the realm of electoral politics.

Posted by Addison F. Golladay | May 9, 2008 11:43 AM

McKingford:
If you ask the question that way, there is only one answer: Obama-Feingold!!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 9, 2008 11:49 AM

I can't think of a single good reason for Obama to pick HRC that isn't better answered by other choices.
And since Obama will lose in the GE there is no reason for HRC to join his losing ticket.
Not even she can save him.
Obama will be the first failed AA candidate and will earn infamy for leading the Dems to defeat in their best chance at the Presidency in a generation. He and his BBF Loser Kerry can windsurf off into the sunset.
Meanwhile HRC will go on to a yet more notable career in the Senate.
She'll never run for President again because the party elders will never forgive her and Bill for being right about Obama's failed Rainbow Coalition.
The ObaCons will blame everyone but themselves and in two years they will be as tough to find as a Naderite after that debacle.
Four years of Granpa Munster will be worth it just to hear the "progressives" cry and whine and mutter their deprecations.
And Matt will go on being wrong about everything and insufferably self absorbed while doing it.

Posted by JTHB | May 9, 2008 11:51 AM

I agree Gore would make ample sense, and it isn't entirely unprecedented--both George Clinton and John C. Calhoun served as Vice President under two different Presidents (Jefferson/Madison and John Quincy Adams/Jackson respectively).

Posted by DTM | May 9, 2008 11:51 AM

Read my lips. Southern. White. Christian. Male.

I like Edwards but he is damaged goods - a two-or three-time loser on the national level, depending on how you count.

Basically, what Addison F. Golladay said.

No one will doubt that notwithstanding his position on Iraq, Webb is willing to kill lots of foreigners so Americans can have cheap gas, which is what "foreign policy street cred" more or less means in this context.

Posted by applecor | May 9, 2008 11:56 AM

As I've already told MY privately, I think he's right about the "national security street cred" argument for HRC, and wish I hadn't included it at the end of a lost list of HRC political assets in my TNR piece.

But his broader objection to the "unity ticket" idea illustrates the problem with most of the alternatives. Everybody's got some idea of a good running-mate, but they reflect wildly varying criteria that won't be easy to choose from. There's nothing "obvious" about, say, Janet Napolitano or Kathleen Sebelius or Jim Webb or any of the other dozens of names I've heard tossed out there.

A big part of my support for the "unity ticket" is probably just a strong desire to get this over with, instead of going through months of endless arguments over the criteria Obama should use in picking a running-mate, leading either to a bad, all-things-to-all-people box-checking choice, or a lot of anger among Democrats who disagree with Obama's decision. We've got enough problems with unhappy HRC supporters, who may well come back, but too slowly to avoid a major distraction that will delay an effective general election campaign.

Ed Kilgore

Posted by Ed Kilgore | May 9, 2008 12:15 PM

"Paradoxically, a lot of folks find her massive wrongness on this hugely important issue reassuring because they and their friends were also wrong."
Don't forget - this may apply to some extent to voters as well as to the power clique in Washington. Most voters thought invading Iraq was a good idea at the time, and most have seen the error of their ways. Perhaps they relate to Clinton on this. Still, voters probably have a lot less invested than do the elites in "reassurance," since their careers don't depend on maintaining their foreign policy cred. Also, voters have a more legitimate claim than Clinton does to having been fooled by all the lies coming out of the Administration. So it should be easier to persuade them to choose the person who was actually right.

Posted by bobbo | May 9, 2008 12:17 PM

No, no, no, no, no! Who he needs running with him is someone who comes across less cool, and Ivy League in interpersonal style, and who has a more experience on the federal level, preferably in the Senate. This would reassure "Reagan Democrats" and older voters who doubt he really gets their situation and who feel he's a little too much of an unknown quantity. And these are the voters who might go to McCain. The vast majority of women Dem supporters of Clinton will, by November, be so disgusted with McCain that they would vote for even a Dem a lot less credible than Obama. My preference would be for a veteran Senator with solid union ties and a little more boisterous, open persona. Maybe Joe Biden would fill the bill?

Posted by LStein | May 9, 2008 12:41 PM

I don’t see a lot of people getting to the crux of why Hillary would be an unworkable choice, which is simply that losing this election means a lot more to her than it would have to Obama. Had he lost the nomination, he could simply have brushed it off and said “Hey, nobody expected me to beat the Clintons,” and been positioned to take the veep slot and/or make an equally credible run in a few years.

Clinton has a huge black eye from this race. There was no Democrat in the country better known than her (except her husband and possibly Al Gore), and yet when she asked for our nomination we chose not to give it to her. We gave it to a guy we barely know, in fact. To add her to the ticket would do lots of bad things—draw attention away from the nominee, drive up the negatives, contradict the “judgment” argument—but the reason why it’s unlikely to happen is that it saddles us with someone whom we’ve narrowly but clearly rejected. Every single day would bring a reminder of the fact that we were supposed to pick her and didn’t, and that just doesn’t make the ticket look good.

That’s the reason it’s unlikely, anyway. My personal reason for disliking the idea is that it would accentuate exactly what’s wrong with Obama: the weird cult of personality that’s sprung up around him, wherein he can do no wrong and no one but him will do. Some people would have us add someone else to the ticket who, while she’d probably be an excellent president, is light years away from being the only person alive who can do the job.

Posted by Mike B. | May 9, 2008 12:44 PM

Something of a digression, but I hope Kilgore gets a fair bit of credit in the "good standing" column with whomever's in power after this all shakes out. Despite being a neolib, I've come to pretty much fucking hate the DLC as DixieCon appeasers. But Kilgore deserves all the credit in the world for acting in good faith, even in the face of a fair bit of rudeness by people like me.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 9, 2008 12:45 PM

No, no, no, no, no! Who he needs running with him is someone who comes across less cool, and Ivy League in interpersonal style, and who has a more experience on the federal level, preferably in the Senate. This would reassure "Reagan Democrats" and older voters who doubt he really gets their situation and who feel he's a little too much of an unknown quantity. And these are the voters who might go to McCain. The vast majority of women Dem supporters of Clinton will, by November, be so disgusted with McCain that they would vote for even a Dem a lot less credible than Obama. My preference would be for a veteran Senator with solid union ties and a little more boisterous, open persona. Maybe Joe Biden would fill the bill?

Posted by LStein | May 9, 2008 12:46 PM

No, no, no, no, no! Who he needs running with him is someone who comes across less cool, and Ivy League in interpersonal style, and who has a more experience on the federal level, preferably in the Senate. This would reassure "Reagan Democrats" and older voters who doubt he really gets their situation and who feel he's a little too much of an unknown quantity. And these are the voters who might go to McCain. The vast majority of women Dem supporters of Clinton will, by November, be so disgusted with McCain that they would vote for even a Dem a lot less credible than Obama. My preference would be for a veteran Senator with solid union ties and a little more boisterous, open persona. Maybe Joe Biden would fill the bill?

Posted by LStein | May 9, 2008 12:47 PM

No, no, no, no, no! Who he needs running with him is someone who comes across less cool, and Ivy League in interpersonal style, and who has a more experience on the federal level, preferably in the Senate. This would reassure "Reagan Democrats" and older voters who doubt he really gets their situation and who feel he's a little too much of an unknown quantity. And these are the voters who might go to McCain. The vast majority of women Dem supporters of Clinton will, by November, be so disgusted with McCain that they would vote for even a Dem a lot less credible than Obama. My preference would be for a veteran Senator with solid union ties and a little more boisterous, open persona. Maybe Joe Biden would fill the bill?

Posted by LStein | May 9, 2008 12:47 PM

No, no, no, no, no! Who he needs running with him is someone who comes across less cool, and Ivy League in interpersonal style, and who has a more experience on the federal level, preferably in the Senate. This would reassure "Reagan Democrats" and older voters who doubt he really gets their situation and who feel he's a little too much of an unknown quantity. And these are the voters who might go to McCain. The vast majority of women Dem supporters of Clinton will, by November, be so disgusted with McCain that they would vote for even a Dem a lot less credible than Obama. My preference would be for a veteran Senator with solid union ties and a little more boisterous, open persona. Maybe Joe Biden would fill the bill?

Posted by LStein | May 9, 2008 12:50 PM

It's not just about the opinion itself. It's about the "serious foreign policy scholars" out there. If you opposed the war, you differed with the guys that write all the articles, host all the conferences, and in general do all the things that scream "expert" in the mind of the laymen.

Even if they were wrong on Iraq, it doesn't matter. They're still doing all those things, still part of the foreign policy community, and still get to pronounce on your "seriousness".

It's that pronouncement that's the issue. Yes, you could go up against that whole community, and you'd probably be right. But you'd be spending valuable time and energy doing it, and they are a lot more numerous than you are, and can pull out heaps of (often flawed, but rigorous-sounding) books and studies and whatnot to prove that you are right and they are wrong. It'd dominate your time.

So, instead, you just go along with them, get their imprimatur, get the "foreign policy" box ticked off, and then move on, confident that you won't have these guys be exploited by your opponents.

It's odious, and it's at the root of a lot of Washington's foreign policy myopia. But why the hell do you think Heritage, AEI, and all the rest exist in the first place?

Posted by Demosthenes | May 9, 2008 12:51 PM

My preference would be for a veteran Senator with solid union ties and a little more boisterous, open persona.

Ted Kennedy!

But seriously, I don't think a vote for the war should necessarily disqualify a potential running mate. I do think Clinton's a poor choice on those grounds, though, since her refusal to admit it was a mistake and her comments regarding Iran point to a lesson not learned.

Somebody with a position like Edwards (but not him, considering his apparent inability to get anyone to actually vote for him) would be fine. A lot of people supported the war initially and now wish they hadn't. A candidate who is able to articulate that he supported it as part of an old way of thinking but has come to see the light could be extremely beneficial to the Obama campaign and the foreign policy debate in general, I think.

I just don't know who that candidate is. Maybe Biden would be a good choice.

Posted by mark f | May 9, 2008 12:51 PM

Would it be too much to ask that he pick somebody who not only opposed the war ex ante, but who still opposes it? Like, somebody who doesn't want to keep funding it indefinitely and thinks we ought to get the hell out? That'd be great.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | May 9, 2008 12:55 PM

I think Obama should do the same type of thing Bill Clinton did in picking Gore. Look for someone who renforces your strengths. He should be looking for another young, charismatic up and comer, someone who seems like the part of a new Democratic machine, another post boomer.

Posted by eric K | May 9, 2008 12:57 PM

It's not just about the opinion itself. It's about the "serious foreign policy scholars" out there. If you opposed the war, you differed with the guys that write all the articles, host all the conferences, and in general do all the things that scream "expert" in the mind of the laymen.

Even if they were wrong on Iraq, it doesn't matter. They're still doing all those things, still part of the foreign policy community, and still get to pronounce on your "seriousness".

It's that pronouncement that's the issue. Yes, you could go up against that whole community, and you'd probably be right. But you'd be spending valuable time and energy doing it, and they are a lot more numerous than you are, and can pull out heaps of (often flawed, but rigorous-sounding) books and studies and whatnot to prove that you are right and they are wrong. It'd dominate your time.

So, instead, you just go along with them, get their imprimatur, get the "foreign policy" box ticked off, and then move on, confident that you won't have these guys be exploited by your opponents.

It's odious, but why the hell do you think Heritage, AEI, and all the rest exist in the first place?

Posted by Demosthenes | May 9, 2008 12:57 PM

-another Wes Clark vote here.

Posted by Phil-bo | May 9, 2008 1:06 PM

I understand the reservations about Edwards' electoral abilities, but that's a bit misplaced because he's been the victim of some bad luck. Edwards did well in Iowa, but was unable to stand up to the challenge of running against two historic candidates with built in advantages among certain important bases of the party, women and African Americans. In '04, he was weighted down by Kerry's horrible candidacy; two more weeks in Iowa in 2004 and things might have been a lot different. A lot of folks who complain about his inability to deliver NC don't get that he was never that popular there -- Edwards is more like a native son of Iowa or Ohio than of NC.

Webb has some positives, but with the need to repair some bridges with HRC supporters after the present race, I'm not so sure he'd be a good choice. How about DiFi? She always struck me as more "presidential" than Hillary anyway. Too many skeletons? Too hard to replace her in the Senate? Frankly, not that familiar with her history.

Posted by georgia pig | May 9, 2008 1:10 PM

I basically agree with Ed Kilgore's analysis, but I also think that Obama can accomplish the same objective (heal the party as quickly as possible to focus on the general election) by choosing someone with close ties to the Clintons like Wesley Clark. The pundits would interpret such a choice as an obvious conciliatory gesture to Hillary's supporters, and I think that would probably quell any potential insurrection as well as anything. The upside for Obama is that Clark amplifies Obama's foreign policy message and I think they see eye to eye on a lot of issues.

In the end, Obama may not choose to take this route, but I think it definitely makes a lot of sense.

Posted by Moonlight | May 9, 2008 1:11 PM

Everybody's got some idea of a good running-mate, but they reflect wildly varying criteria that won't be easy to choose from.

Sure, we all see it differently, but we're not the presumptive nominee. I don't really see anything in Obama's campaign indicating that he'd have much trouble deciding what his priorities should be-- he's rarely caught flat-footed, and when he is it's usually something relatively trivial. He's got faults, but not planning doesn't seem to be one of them.

Posted by latts | May 9, 2008 1:14 PM

Webb has some positives, but with the need to repair some bridges with HRC supporters after the present race, I'm not so sure he'd be a good choice.

I don't understand this. She's staying in the race because of "white working class voters." That's Webb's natural home. Otherwise, why not Sebilius?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 9, 2008 1:22 PM

Um, why on earth would he "talk himself back" from an enormously popular position?

Because it's not that popular. Yes, most people see the Iraq war as a mistake, but the problem comes with the next question: What do you do about it?

Ask that question, and opinion splinters all over the place.

Posted by John Petty | May 9, 2008 1:24 PM

I don't think you can say that Clark has no political skills. You don't rise to that rank without them. He is a poor campaigner. That doesn't really matter. People who can be swayed by campaigning tactics will be swayed by Obama. No VP choice could possibly give a speech, or host a meet&greet that comes close to what Obama can do.

Another thing Clark brings is an inside track to rebuilding the military as an apolitical institution. Top leadership who opposed the war were gutted. The already-Republican-leaning pentagon has been shoved rightward violently. A lot of the military don't like the way things have been run. Most generals don't want to go to war at the drop of a hat. Clark might have enough contacts to provide useful insight into undoing the damage.

Posted by Njorl | May 9, 2008 1:30 PM

A unity ticket only works if the running mates are actually unified. If Clinton stopped attacking Obama then maybe it would make sense, but as long as she thinks she has a chance (and I'm not sure anything could happen before the convention, at which point the VP is already chosen, that would convince her otherwise) she will continue to say he is unelectable. Not only does this make it more difficult for Obama to run on the same ticket with her, it reflects that she is not actually all that interested in being his VP.

Edwards obviously didn't work out for other reasons, but he was a plausible choice because he didn't try to argue that Kerry was doomed to lose the general. There's a bit of a catch-22 since Edwards wasn't competitive with Kerry, so he was effectively running for the VP spot and there wasn't the same need for unity, while Clinton had about half the party behind her, so the need for unity is greater, but at the same time she has been close enough that she hasn't let up on Obama. But there is a middle ground where the runner up has a significant base but takes a more conciliatory pose, as opposed to a kamikaze approach to the nomination battle itself. Clinton could have done this, but as the erstwhile frontrunner (Edwards, on the other hand, overperformed by finishing second) it's understandably difficult for her to come down to that level. I don't blame her for not angling for the VP slot at this point (although she needs to start being more supportive of Obama for the sake of the party), but I do think it's crazy for observers to suggest that she is the best choice for VP.

This isn't meant to be accusatory of anyone promoting Clinton, but the inclusion of the war vote in an analysis of Clinton as VP pick has drawn a parallel between the two in my mind. We weren't debating a theoretical invasion of Iraq in 2002-3, we were debating one that would be run by the Bush administration, staffed with neocons who were more interested in reshaping the Middle East than they were in WMD's or actually doing a competent job of occupying and rebuilding Iraq. And we're not debating a theoretical unity ticket, we're debating an Obama-Clinton ticket, and she has continually undermined (not just attacked, but undermined) the nominee. When I read cases for Clinton that emphasize the need for bringing in the half of the party that supported her, it always seems that the fact that Clinton herself is untenable as Obama's running mate is ignored, just as liberal hawks tended to make their case without acknowledging that Bush was not likely to adhere to the same principles and therefore the war would not be run in the way they envisaged.

Posted by ibid | May 9, 2008 1:37 PM

"being massively wrong on the most important national security issue of her career."

Again, Matt leaves out the fact that HE WAS ALSO FOR THE WAR!!

He thought the rest of us were DFH's, and of course won't ever put that little inconvenient truth in any of his blatherings about others who were "wrong".

What a joke.

And I'm sorry, but to say "oh, but he was only 21 when he thought that!" is fucking bullshit. I was 19 during the Gulf War and I knew it was all a fucking sham from the onset. And I wasn't some awesome-college-elitist-dude like Matt. I was just an average joe working an average job with no education.

What a crock of ugly, bitter shit you write here. The rest of this post is completely irrelevant, and you should be ashamed to take others to task over the same ignorance that you held.

Posted by Jesus Hussein Christ | May 9, 2008 1:43 PM

The Obama people need to face one fact: The rest of the country is not over-awed by the awesomeness of Obama. Maybe it's their fault, or maybe you're got stars in your eyes. In any case, half of the Democratic Party didn't want him. (In fact, just among Democrats, MORE than half didn't want him.)

Let's not allow this to slip by. Obama won the most votes. Period. The fact that McCain won more votes in his primaries is not an indicator of acceptance of McCain, it is a reflection of the weakness of his compeition (and different electoral rules).

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | May 9, 2008 1:44 PM

Matt leaves out the fact that HE WAS ALSO FOR THE WAR!!
--Jesus Hussein Christ, 5/9/08, in response to "Against Unity" by Matthew Yglesias

I got the war wrong, and I think that gives me less "cred" than I would have had had I gotten the war right and I think that, politically speaking, it makes sense to put people forward who aren't tainted by the war.
--Matthew Yglesias, "Against Unity," 5/9/2008

Posted by mark f | May 9, 2008 1:49 PM

I think someone else on this thread already made a really good point: it depends on what Hillary wants. I think there is a democratic argument to be made in favor of selecting Hillary as VP is she wants the job b/c she has a substantial number of loyal supporters. Their voices would be respected by a VP nod. But if she's not eager for the job, it would be stupid to beg her to take it.

Posted by mpowell | May 9, 2008 1:54 PM

If you want a reassuring, no-frills, liberal white guy with union ties who voted against the war and can rip the Republicans a new one, there's always Dick Durbin...except he can't legally run with Obama, both being from Illinos.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 9, 2008 2:19 PM

"I don't understand this. She's staying in the race because of "white working class voters." That's Webb's natural home. Otherwise, why not Sebilius?"

Sorry, too cryptic. Hillary's not necessarily the candidate of "white working class voters" but more of "white older working class women." Webb might not be too useful there, and I'm afraid a lot of the extended Appalachia male vote will go for McCain anyway, so the older female vote is important. "Jane Sixpack" often nods her head when her hubby is railing about "socialist democrats" and other assorted nonsense, but often does something completely different in the voting booth.

Posted by georgia pig | May 9, 2008 2:21 PM

This Yglesias post is like a diamond bullet to the forehead, the damndest most incisive post of the last 8 years.

Did I mention I liked it? Digby could not have done better.

Posted by Raoul Paste | May 9, 2008 2:28 PM

Unity ticket make barf.

Posted by Arabella | May 9, 2008 2:47 PM

Because it's not that popular. Yes, most people see the Iraq war as a mistake, but the problem comes with the next question: What do you do about it?

Ask that question, and opinion splinters all over the place.

No not really. Obama's position is still extremely popular.

From http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Regardless of how you intend to vote, what would you prefer the next president do about the war in Iraq? Would you prefer the next president try to end the Iraq war within the next year or two, no matter what, or continue to fight the Iraq war as long as they felt it was necessary?"
End: 62 Continue: 34 Unsure: 4

"Which is more important to you in a presidential candidate: someone who commits to staying in Iraq until the U.S. succeeds, or someone who is flexible about when to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?"

Stay in Iraq: 19 Flexible: 77 Unsure: 4

"Do you think the United States must win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success, or do you think the war on terrorism can be a success without the United States winning the war in Iraq?"

Must win Iraq: 31 Not necessary: 61 Unsure:8

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"

Remain: 41 Withdraw: 56

"Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, do you think a Democratic or a Republican president would do a better job resolving the situation in Iraq?"

Dem: 52 Republican: 35

Posted by Jinchi | May 9, 2008 2:52 PM